New Zealand Population Review 28(1), 99-128.
Copyright © 2002 Population Association of New Zealand
Return Migration of New Zealanders:
Shuttle and Circular Migrants
JACQUELINE LIDGARD*
CHRISTOPHER GILSON
oncerns about a “brain drain” are expressed when the number of
people leaving a country exceeds the number entering. This is what
happened in New Zealand in the last few months of 2000 and the
beginning of 2001. In fact the concern was so great that the
Government sponsored Catching the Knowledge Wave, a conference in August
2001, when considerable attention was focussed on initiatives to attract
“talent” to New Zealand (Ho 2001). As 2001 drew to a close, rather than a
bout of anxiety over the “brain drain” there was a Ministerial re-evaluation
of the qualifying pass mark for new immigrants following a surge of interest
in New Zealand as a migrant destination (Dalziel 2001). This is a clear
indication of how quickly situations can be reversed in the early 21st first
century.
For some decades concern has been expressed in the international
literature at the loss of human capital through emigration. In the 1960s and
1970s this “brain drain” phenomenon was commented on extensively
(Fortney 1970; Wilson and Gaston 1974). The conclusion at that time was
that “brain drain” is conditioned by political and economic imbalances in the
world system (Portes 1976). The major “push” factor appeared to be an
asymmetry between the capacity of a nation to produce numbers of highly
trained personnel and its capacity to absorb them into the workforce. Far
more professionals than are needed are often produced by countries with
free entry policies to their universities. The fact that many of these people
need to leave their country of birth to find employment is more of a brain
“overflow” than “drain”.
In a key study of “brain return” in the late 1970s, Glaser (1978) showed
beyond doubt that the commitment to return to their country of birth is
C
*
Jacqueline Lidgard is a Research Fellow in the Migration Research Group,
Geography Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Email: [email protected]. Christopher Gilson is a graduate student in the
Geography Department, University of Waikato.
LIDGARD & GILSON
100
very strong among high level personnel working or studying abroad. He
found that although many people may stay away from their home country
longer than their initial planned term they still intend to return.
An attachment to one’s birthplace seems to be a universal sense in
human experience. As the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan (1977:154) has observed:
This profound attachment to the homeland appears to be a worldwide
phenomenon. It is not limited to any particular culture and economy.…
The city or land is viewed as mother and it nourishes; place is an archive of
fond memories and splendid achievements that inspire the present; place is
permanent and hence reassuring.
Tuan (1977:3) also suggested that “place is security – and space is freedom:
we are attached to the one and long for the other”. The freedom of “space” is
usually what young New Zealanders dream of when they plan their great
“O.E.” – an established part of middle-class, New Zealand culture. Many
people in New Zealand have family or close friends who have spent time or
who are living overseas. A significant proportion of these people, however,
retain strong ties to New Zealand and it is the “security” of home that
eventually draws them back from their bed-sits in London – a theme used
effectively in advertising campaigns during 2001.
Researchers have suggested that migration in advanced industrial
societies since the 1970s is largely “exchange migration” (Richmond 1984)
with return often a substantial part of this exchange. More recently,
Morrison (2001) suggests that this is “circulation of the elite”. He argues
that more attention now needs to be focussed on this global trend and the
expanding opportunities for international work for the professions. In a
paper on the ethnic diversity and “brain circulation” of the Silicon Valley
workforce in the United States, Saxenian (2002:28) argues that high-skill
immigration makes everyone better off and that “economically speaking, it is
blessed to give and receive”.
This paper focuses on the return migration of New Zealand
nationals. It is based on data sourced both from arrival and departure cards
supplied by Statistics New Zealand, as well as from surveys of return
migrants to New Zealand conducted over the past decade. First, the
migration of New Zealanders and the relevance of return migration since
the beginning of the 1960s is outlined. Second, there is a brief description of
the surveys conducted in 1990 and 2000 and the methodology used to
identify a national sample of New Zealand citizens who returned after
absences overseas for more than 12 months.
Next, some of the selected characteristics of the sample of returnees who
arrived back in November 2000 are compared with the characteristics of a
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
101
similar sample that returned in November 1990. Some comparable
characteristics from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development
Study of the "age-26" (1998-1999) assessment are also included (Milne et al.
2001). The profiles focus on the age-sex structure, ethnicity, country of
residence prior to return, employment and current source of income.
Reasons given for leaving and returning are also discussed. Then the
discussion of the feelings of returnees about the effects of time spent
overseas is complemented by the findings from a separate in-depth study of
six returnees living in the Waikato region.
The paper concludes with a brief comment on the movement of the
current labour market “winners” who have the opportunity in the early 21st
century to pursue transnational careers and maintain multi-local lives. For
New Zealanders this may mean “shuttling” backwards and forwards across
the Tasman or “circulating” through countries of the Northern Hemisphere.
The words from some of the recent returnees are used, for as “insiders” of
the return process in 2000 they provide valuable insights into reasons why
New Zealanders continue to leave and then come back to this country.
Policy makers are reminded that New Zealand has a pool of citizens
overseas, estimated to be almost equal to a quarter of the resident
population. These people have the option to return to this country whenever
they please.
Migration of New Zealanders in the Past 40 Years
New Zealanders are very mobile moving frequently both internally and
internationally (Bedford 2001). A survey of New Zealanders departing for
overseas destinations on a permanent basis in October 1979 showed that
barely 10 per cent left saying that under no circumstances would they
return to New Zealand (Barrington and Davey 1980). Clearly when most
citizens leave New Zealand they intend to become part of a reverse
population flow or part of a group of people whose population movement is
better labelled as circulation rather than migration.
The significance of studying return migration lies in the fact that skilled
emigrants bring back not only their specialist skills acquired from their
education in New Zealand but also their additional skills and experience
acquired while living overseas. In addition they also help to establish and
intensify networks connecting New Zealand and New Zealanders to their
previous countries of residence. Thus returnees can play a pivotal role in the
strengthening of relationships within the world system of capitalist
economies.
LIDGARD & GILSON
102
Arrivals Classified Permanent and Long-Term (PLT)
In New Zealand, during the past 40 years, the decade of the 1980s stands
out as the time when the number of New Zealand citizens returning to the
country as PLT arrivals was higher than that of new immigrants arriving
(Table 1). Between April 1980 and March 1990 return migration added
231,000 citizens to New Zealand’s population compared with 209,000 new
immigrants. That is 52.5 per cent of the PLT arrivals were New Zealand
citizens during this period. This compares with the two previous decades –
the 1960s when just over a quarter of PLT arrivals were returning New
Zealanders and the 1970s when 35 per cent of this group were New Zealand
citizens.
During the 1990s a combination of factors saw the return of New
Zealand citizens far outweighed again by the arrival of new immigrants even
though the number of New Zealanders returning (231,701) was marginally
larger than in the previous decade (230,517). The substantial net migration
gains of the early 1990s were, in part, a response to government strategy to
encourage immigration to New Zealand, especially immigration from
countries in Asia. In the 1990s 63 per cent of the PLT arrivals to New
Zealand were new immigrants compared with 47.5 per cent in the 1980s
(Table 1). Although the 21st century has begun with rising numbers of PLT
arrivals (45,294), the percentage of these arrivals that were returning New
Zealand citizens was only 32 per cent of total PLT arrivals in the year ended
31 March 2001 (Table 1).
Table 1: Permanent and long-term arrivals of New Zealand citizens
and non-citizens, 1 April 1960 to 31 March 2001
Year ended 31
March
NZ Citizens
Number
% Total
Non-Citizens
Number
% Total
Total
PLT Arrivals
1961-1970
82,104
26.4
229,366
73.6
311,470
1971-1980
168,167
35.1
311,542
64.9
479,709
1981-1990
230,517
52.5
208,962
47.5
439,479
1991-2000
231,701
37.5
386,588
62.5
618,289
1961-2000
712,489
38.5
1,136,458
61.5
1,848,947
21,171
32.0
45,294
68.0
66,465
2001
Source: Unpublished tables provided by Statistics New Zealand.
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
103
In the two March years in which the surveys of return migrants were
conducted – 1991 and 2001 – the share of New Zealand citizens in the PLT
arrival stream dropped by 20 percentage points. Although the change in the
proportion of New Zealanders in the PLT arrival flows is large this drop is
not really surprising for three reasons. First, 1991 was a year of big returns,
in fact the largest return of New Zealand citizens in any year since the
troops returned from the Second World War (Lowe 1991). This large inflow
occurred after the massive outflow in 1988/89. Second, the cycle of
migration at the last quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001 was in the
outflow phase, fuelled by the Australian government change in the
automatic welfare entitlements for New Zealanders living and working in
Australia. A media headline in February “Migrants rush to beat Australian
residence clampdown” (Small and Gregory 2001, A1) summed up what took
place in the first few months of 2001. Third, immigration in 2001 was
running at higher levels than in 1991; so although the number of New
Zealanders returning is still over 20,000 per year, this equated to a smaller
share of the total PLT arrivals in 2001.
Arrivals and Departures in PLT flows
Since the mid-1990s the number of New Zealand citizens departing on a
PLT basis has been rising steadily (Figure 1). By the year ended 31 March
2001 the number departing had reached a record high of 63,500 surpassing
the previous high year of departures, year ending 31 March 1979, by three
and a half thousand. In the debate about these rising levels of citizens
departing there is a significant group of people that is usually overlooked –
the New Zealand citizens returning after an absence of 12 months. For the
past 22 years returning New Zealand citizens aged mainly in their late 20s,
have been adding over 20,000 citizens to the total population each year
(Figure 1).
The pattern of departures, however, is much more volatile (Figure 1).
Clearly more people have left New Zealand on a PLT basis than have
returned. In spite of the fact that category jumping means that the overall
net loss of New Zealand citizens is lower than suggested by the numbers
departing in the PLT category (Bedford 2001), clearly there are significant
expatriate populations developing overseas.
Development of a large pool of people with residence rights living
outside of New Zealand means that even a small percentage returning at any
given time would create a relatively large inflow of people. It is estimated
there are now around 435,000 New Zealand nationals living in Australia
LIDGARD & GILSON
104
(Birrell and Rapson 2001). If 10 per cent of this group decided to return that
number is over one per cent of the resident population (3,792,654).
Accordingly, it is important to recognise the return flows of New
Zealanders as they are outside the control of immigration authorities and
are often overlooked when new policy is being formulated. These hundreds
of thousands of New Zealand citizens and other people with residence rights
living and travelling overseas can come back to New Zealand whenever they
please, whatever the immigration policy of the day. In fact, the free
movement of citizens in and out of the country means that the government
in New Zealand has limited direct control over levels of international
migration.
Figure 1: Arrivals and departures of New Zealand citizens, permanent
and long-term, years ending 31 March 1961 to 31 March
2001
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000
-60,000
-70,000
1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
Arrivals
1986
1991
1996
2001
Departures
Source: Unpublished tables provided by Statistics New Zealand
Return Migration Surveys
Locating return migrants in the community at large is costly and timeconsuming (Lidgard 1991, 1993). There is an excellent source of
information on ALL New Zealand citizens returning to the country after an
absence of 12 months or more, and that is the arrival cards. In order to
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
105
obtain a national sample of returning New Zealanders at a particular time a
procedure was developed, in consultation with the New Zealand
Immigration Service and Statistics New Zealand, for accessing a sample of
returning New Zealand citizens using the information contained on the
arrival cards. This procedure involved the New Zealand Immigration
Service sending an invitation to all those New Zealanders who had returned
after an absence of 12 months or more during the month of November 1990.
The nationality, name and address information given on the arrival cards
was used to identify who should receive this letter. A reply paid card was
included, addressed to me. Those who agreed to participate in the project
returned this card with their names and addresses noted and they were
subsequently sent a questionnaire.
Funding was provided by the Department of Labour and the FRSTfunded New Demographic Directions Programme to replicate the 1990 national
study in November 2000. The second questionnaire was designed to enable
the results of the survey in 2000 to be comparable with the research
conducted a decade before in 1990. The analysis of the 2000 data is based on
499 completed questionnaires while the comparative sample in 1990 was
740. The remainder of this article contains a comparative analysis of the
country the returnees spent most time in while overseas, their age and
gender composition, ethnicity, length of absence from New Zealand,
educational qualifications, employment and sources of income and their
reasons for going overseas and subsequent return.
New Zealand Citizen Returnees
In November 1990, the total PLT arrivals for that month was 4,870, of
which 2,824 identified themselves as New Zealand citizens returning after
an absence of 12 months. That is 58 per cent of all PLT arrivals in that
month were returning New Zealand citizens. Introductory letters were only
sent to those that had given legible, full postal addresses and were aged 15
years and above. The initial sample group in 1990 comprised 77 per cent of
the total population of returning New Zealand citizens (Table 2).
The number of New Zealand citizens returning after 12 months
overseas in November 2000 was 2,191 (37%) out of a total PLT arrival
count of 5,922. The introductory mail-out list contained 1,817 names (all
those aged 15 years and over recording a legible name and full postal
address). The initial sample group for the 2000 survey was 83 per cent of
the base population of all ages. Although the proportion of New Zealand
nationals returning at the beginning of the 21st Century is lower than it was
LIDGARD & GILSON
106
a decade ago the survey sample is a similar proportion of the returning New
Zealand citizens (Table 2). By the end of May 2001 568 responses had been
received from people interested in participating in the research. This
response rate of 31 per cent was the same as that of a decade ago.
Table 2: Returnee populations, November 1990 and 2000
Year
Total long-term
arrivals
(1)
NZ Citizen
arrivals
(2)
(2)/(1)
(%)
(3)
People
contacted
(4)
%
Total
(4)/(2)
1900
4870
2824
58
2175
77
2000
5922
2191
37
1817
83
Source: Statistics New Zealand arrival data
Some Characteristics of New Zealand Returnees in 1990 and
2000
A review of international literature on return migrants shows that returnees
have distinctive demographic and socio-economic characteristics (see King et
al. 1983 for a useful review). New Zealand citizens who return after a
lengthy absence overseas are no exception.
Age and Gender Composition
The most striking characteristic of return migrants is their age composition
and numerous studies have reported that return migrants are clustered
around age 30 (Appleyard 1962; Campbell and Johnson 1976; Population
Monitoring Group 1991; Richmond 1968). It has been recognised for some
time that the age composition of New Zealanders in the migrant flows into
and out of New Zealand is distinctive. As Lowe (1991:84) noted,
…because New Zealanders have the most highly concentrated age
structure of any major immigrant group [c]hanges in the balance between
New Zealand return migrants and “new” immigrants … have the potential
to significantly affect the age-structure of the total immigrant inflow.
The 20-29 year age group dominated the survey populations in both years
with 40 per cent concentrated in the 25-29 year age band in 1990 and 32 per
1
cent in 2000. There was a higher proportion of recent returnees in the age
groups above 30 years in 2000 reflecting, in part, the progressive aging of
the New Zealand source population (Figure 2). While two thirds of
returnees in the 1990 sample were under the age of 30 years, in the 2000
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
107
survey less than a half (45%) were in their late teens or twenties. In the 2000
sample there was virtually the same proportion of returnees in the 30-39
year age group (31%) as in their late twenties (32%).
Figure 2: Comparative age-sex pyramids of the base and survey
populations in November 1990 and 2000
Base population, November 1990
70+
Males
Base population, November 2000
70+
Females
Males
35-39
25-29
35-39
25-29
15-19
15-19
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
30
Percentage of total population 2,452;
Sex Ratio 95
Males
10
0
10
20
30
Survey population, 2000
70+
60-69
20
Percentage of population 1,869;
Sex Ratio 99
Survey population, 1990
70+
Females
Males
60-69
50-59
Females
50-59
40-49
Age group
Age group
Females
50-59
Age group
Age group
50-59
35-39
30-34
25-29
40-49
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
20-24
15-19
15-19
30
20
10
0
10
20
Percentage of population of 740;
Sex ratio 76
30
30
20
10
0
10
20
Percentage of population of 499;
Sex ratio 71
30
Source:
Return Migration Surveys and Statistics New Zealand base population
data
Notes: 1 Base population refers to the NZ citizens who returned in the month of
November
2 Survey population refers to those from the base population who responded
to the invitation to answer a questionnaire
In 1990 there was a significant difference in age structure between return
migrants from Australia, the United Kingdom and “other” countries
(Lidgard 1992:86) (Figure 2). Just under half (49%) of those returning from
Australia were in the 20-29 year age group compared with 80 per cent in the
case of the United Kingdom. It was felt that this difference in the age
characteristics of return migrants from Australia and the United Kingdom
108
LIDGARD & GILSON
was a reflection of the absence of any control over residence of New
Zealanders in Australia and the impact a maximum age (27) entitlement for
the two year work visa New Zealanders can apply for when travelling to the
United Kingdom (the maximum age changed in 2002 to 30 years).
In 2000, there was still a significant difference in country of
previous residence for those returnees in their twenties (from Australia 20
per cent, from the United Kingdom 53 per cent). In the group who returned
aged in their thirties, however, there was an even spread over the countries
of previous residence. A third were returning from Australia, just under a
third were coming back from the United Kingdom and a further third were
returning from “other” countries (Figure 2).
The sex ratio (males per 100 females) was lower in 2000 (71 compared
to 76 in 1990). When the age sex pyramids are compared for the two
surveys (Figure 2) the most obvious change is the drop in the percentage of
males in their twenties and an increase in the percentage in older age
groups. As in 1990, the returnee group in 2000 was dominated by women in
the 25-29 year age group (Figure 2). For women this age group is slightly
larger than in 1990 while the biggest change for women has been the drop
in the proportion returning in their early twenties.
Country Lived in for Most of 12 Months Prior to Return
In 1990 80 per cent of the returnees were returning from two countries Australia and the United Kingdom. The return flow from these two
countries had dropped to 76 per cent in the year 2000 (Table 3).
The respondents that the surveys are based on are, in a sense, “self
selected” as there was no opportunity to follow-up those people who failed
to respond to the invitation to participate in the research. In 1990, out of a
survey respondents of 740, over half were returnees from the United
Kingdom, a quarter were returning from Australia and a fifth from “other”
countries (Table 3). Returnees from the United Kingdom were overrepresented in the sample of migrants who agreed to participate in the
survey. It was felt that this was partly due to the fact that for many people
transtasman travel is viewed as similar to internal rather than international
movement and hence not as “interesting” to friends or researchers.
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
109
Table 3: Country of previous residence of base and survey populations
Year
Total
Australia
United Kingdom
Other Countries
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
1990
2452
100
997
41
964
39
491
20
2000
1869
100
507
27
905
49
457
24
1990
740
100
186
25
404
55
150
20
2000
499
100
82
17
279
55
138
28
Base
Survey
Source: As for Figure 2
Note: It is acknowledged that weightings to standardise these return rates have
not been applied. Much of the subsequent analysis has been done on three
individual countries rather than the total.
In the recent survey, the percentage (55) returning from the United
Kingdom in 2000 remained the same as in 1990 (55) although there was a
drop in the percentage returning from Australia and a corresponding rise in
the percentage returning from “other” countries (72 per cent from the
United Kingdom and Australia) (Table 3). This means that the Australian
returnees are even more under-represented in the recent survey. The drop
in the proportion of those responding that were returning from Australia is
as expected given that the migration cycle to that country was in the
outflow phase in 1999 and 2000.
The rise in the numbers of those returning from “other” countries is
expected to be, in part, the return to New Zealand of recent immigrants.
These people will have taken out New Zealand citizenship and may have
travelled offshore as part of their strategy for maintaining economic and
social connections in former homes (Ho 2002; Lidgard et al. 1998).
In fact, there was no evidence that many recent immigrants were
amongst the returnees in November 2000. Eighty-eight per cent of the
returnees had been born in New Zealand. Only one other country had been
the birthplace of more than five per cent of the returnees – the United
Kingdom (6%). Two other regions featured as the birthplace of just over one
per cent of the returnees – Europe (1.6%) and the Pacific Islands (1.2%). The
same small percentage (0.6%) had been born in Asia, North America and
Australia.
LIDGARD & GILSON
110
Ethnicity
The ethnicity of the returnees was more varied in the sample for 2000 than it
was a decade ago. Over 90 per cent of the 1990 sample that completed the
survey were New Zealand European, four per cent identified themselves as
New Zealand Maori and three per cent said they had other ethnic origins
(Lidgard 1992:99).
In the sample for November 2000, those citing New Zealand European
ethnicity again comprised the dominant group amongst the returnees who
completed the survey although the percentage of total returnees had fallen by
almost 10 percentage points over the decade (Table 4). The percentage
identifying themselves as New Zealand Maori had also dropped from four to
three per cent. The biggest change (10 percentage points) was in the return
to New Zealand of people identifying themselves as having an ethnicity other
than the two major ethnic groups in New Zealand (Table 4).
Table 4: Ethnicity of survey populations, by country of previous
residence, 1990 and 2000 (per cent)
Ethnicity
Australia
United
Kingdom
Other countries
All countries
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
88
74
94
89
88
82
92
83
NZ Maori
7
6
2
0.4
5
3
4
3
Other ethnic groups
3
19
2
9
5
13
3
13
Not specified
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
1
1
186
82
404
279
150
138
740
499
NZ European
Total Number
Source: Return Migration Surveys
The percentage of people of Samoan ethnicity returning in November
2000 (3%) was almost as high as those declaring New Zealand Maori
ethnicity. A further one and a half per cent of the returnees were of Chinese
ethnicity and just over one per cent did not answer the question (Table 4).
While it was expected that some of these people might be returning from
former homelands, those in the survey identifying themselves as Samoan or
Chinese were New Zealand born, and had in fact, returned from either
Australia or the United Kingdom.
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
111
Length of Absence from New Zealand
To gain an insight into how closely the survey participants’ intentions on
length of absence matched their actual length of time away, they were asked
to remember how long they intended to live overseas when they left New
Zealand. The results are compared for the two surveys in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, at the end of the 1990s over half the citizens who
leave the country still plan to be away from New Zealand for less than two
years. Undoubtedly, the two-year working holiday visa, which New
Zealanders under the age of 28 years are eligible to obtain in the United
Kingdom, affects these figures. Indeed, when the length of stay overseas is
examined on a country basis, around three-quarters of those returning from
the United Kingdom return within the two years allowed on the working
holiday visa.
Table 5: Planned duration and actual length of stay overseas, returnees
in November 1990 and 2000 (per cent)
November 1990 (N=740)
November 2000 (N=499)
Duration
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
< 2 years
65
65
54
55
3-5 years
10
21
15
19
6-9 years
1
6
1
6
20 years+ *
9
6
7
8
15
2
23
12
Unsure & unclear
Note: *Includes those who stated they planned to be away indefinitely or
permanently
Although more citizens left New Zealand in the late 1990s planning to be
away for between three to five years, slightly less actually returned in that
time frame. The percentage who leave with no clear intention of the length of
time they plan to stay overseas has also increased as has the number in the
“unsure” category that have returned.
Number of Years Lived Overseas and Return Trips
The participants in the November 2000 group were asked how many years in
total they had lived overseas. Just over a third of the group had lived away
from New Zealand for between 1-2 years (34%). Almost another third (30%)
had lived overseas for between 3-5 years while 10 per cent had lived outside
112
LIDGARD & GILSON
the country for between six and nine years. Almost 20 per cent of the
returnees had lived out of New Zealand for over 10 years.
While living overseas over half of the participants (55%) had made a
return visit to New Zealand with an average length of stay of less than one
month. Just over 20 per cent had visited up to three times before the current
return. Clearly this group of people have retained close ties with New
Zealand while living overseas.
Future Travel Plans
In the group that had returned in November 2000, just over a quarter said
they planned to leave New Zealand again for 12 months or more. Just over a
third were undecided and an equal number said they had no plans to leave
again for a lengthy period. Of those who were planning to leave, a third
indicated that they would be returning to a country where they had already
lived, while just under a quarter said they would be going to a country where
they had not yet lived. It appears that at least a third of these returnees are,
or plan to become, “circulators”.
Marital Status
In 1990, there was a disproportionately large proportion of return migrants
who had never been married. The dominant group were young men and
women returning from the United Kingdom. Amongst returnees from across
the Tasman there was both a higher incidence of married and divorced
(Lidgard 1992:92; Lidgard and Bedford 1992:438). The return of New
Zealand-born men and women without a spouse but accompanied by their
Australian-born children was also noted in Bedford and Lowe (1993).
Analysis of the 2000 returnees indicates that once again the largest group
(39%) were those who had never been married although the group recording
they were separated was almost as large (36%). As suggested previously the
break-up of relationships can create a desire to return to the comfort of the
“home” region and the presence of family (Lidgard 1992:94; Lidgard and
Bedford 1992:438). The group indicating they were in a “de facto”
relationship was 15 per cent and those married six per cent.
On a country of previous residence basis the largest group in both
surveys was young men and women who had never been married returning
from the United Kingdom (44%). The second largest groups were those who
were separated returning from across the Tasman (40%) and from all other
countries except the United Kingdom (41%). All other marital status
categories (de facto relationships, married, widowed, divorced) had similar
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
113
small percentages returning from all countries. Although, the pattern is
similar to a decade ago the indication is that marital status in the 21st
Century is a much more complicated variable to analyse and the results need
to be interpreted as reflecting trends in changing family patterns as much as
changes in migration patterns.
Travelling Groups
Participants were asked to record whether they travelled overseas alone, with
companions or as part of a family group. In both the 1990 and 2000 returnee
populations surveyed, 40 per cent said that they did not have travelling
companions when they left New Zealand (Lidgard 1992:115). In 2000, 10 per
cent of those returning said that when they left they did so as part of a family
group (partner and children).
When they returned to New Zealand a slightly higher percentage of the
respondents travelled back alone than went overseas alone in 1990 (46%).
However the reverse was the case in 2000 when 35 per cent returned alone
with a corresponding rise in the percentage of those coming back as a family
group (16%).
The high incidence of solo travel amongst New Zealanders going
overseas lends some support to the proposition that much of this movement
is for some “overseas experience” or a “holiday”. If the movement was to
involve permanent relocations it is likely that more family groups would be
moving.
Educational Qualifications
The people who returned in 1990 were highly educated with over half of the
survey population indicating that they had received some form of tertiary
training – a higher percentage than is found in the New Zealand population
as a whole (Lidgard 1992:100; Lidgard and Bedford 1992:438). In the recent
survey the returnees again appeared to have a similar high level of
educational qualifications -- 50 per cent with tertiary qualifications and a
further seven per cent with trade certificates. Thirteen per cent were
returning with an overseas qualification.
It is possible to compare the results for the 2000 returnees with
characteristics of the 980 members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health
2
and Development Study participating in the “age-26” (1998-1999)
assessment (Milne et al. 2001). This study has found that “Emigrants were
114
LIDGARD & GILSON
significantly more likely than non-emigrants to have a tertiary qualification”
(Milne et al. 2001:451).
Employment and Source of Income
By March 1991, two thirds of those who returned in November 1990, and
stated they had been searching for work, reported that they had found
employment, while the remainder were still job hunting (Lidgard 1992:148).
In March 2001 just under two-thirds of the total survey population were
working (58% for wages or salary and 6% self-employed). This indicates that
it is reasonable to expect that four months after return approximately two
thirds of returnees will be employed.
When the data on sources of income were analysed using country of
previous residence just over two thirds of the returnees from the United
Kingdom in November 2000 were in waged employment compared with just
under half of those returning from “other” countries and 44 per cent of those
returning from across the Tasman. The highest proportion in selfemployment were Australian returnees (11%) compared with four per cent in
this category returning from the United Kingdom and five per cent of
returnees from “other” countries. A slightly higher percentage of those
returning from Australia were on a government support payment of some
kind (16%) than was the case for returnees from “other” countries (14%) or
the United Kingdom (12%).
Employment Activities
The respondents in 2000 were asked to show which employment activities
they were engaged in 3-12 months prior to leaving New Zealand, while they
were overseas and currently. This question was included to gain an insight
into the occupational characteristics of the survey group and to compare their
current occupation with occupations they have had in the past. Amongst the
survey population a share was engaged in study at all three levels (Table 6).
Study activities were as expected highest in the 12 months prior to
leaving (Table 6). However, just over a fifth of the group recorded that they
had engaged in some form of study activity whilst overseas. Nearly 30 per
cent of the participants studying were doing so at the postgraduate level both
overseas and since their return to New Zealand.
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
115
Table 6: Study activities of the November 2000 returnees, prior to
leaving New Zealand, while overseas and back in New
Zealand, March 2001 (per cent)
Study Activity
Secondary School
University (undergraduate)
Prior
Whilst
Currently
20
7
21.1
28
15.7
24.1
University (graduate)
21.6
29.6
29.3
Other Tertiary Study
30.4
47.8
34.5
Total number engaged
125
115
58
Source: Return Migration Survey, 2000
Respondents were allowed to report more than one activity so the
numbers in Tables 6 and 7 do not sum to the total number of respondents.
Table 7 shows that while overseas, New Zealand citizens were involved in a
wider range of occupational activities than when they were in New Zealand.
This reinforces the perception that New Zealanders are highly regarded as
employees overseas and are given the opportunity to work in occupations
that they may have had little training or experience in before leaving this
country (see total number engaged, Table 7).
Table 7: Employment activities of the November 2000 returnees, prior
to leaving New Zealand, while working overseas and working
in New Zealand, March 2001 (per cent)
Employment Activity
Prior
Whilst
Currently
Clerical/related work
7.5
11.8
6
Agricultural work
4.7
4.6
4.4
Sales/Service work
11.9
11.2
9.5
Professional
27.3
19.2
23.6
Administrative/Managerial
12.8
12.9
9.5
Self-employed
6.8
5.9
6.2
Heavy labouring/ construction
4.5
5.9
4.7
Household duties
11.4
10.4
16.2
Business owner
2.4
3.6
2.7
Multinational company worker
7.2
9.9
5.8
Unemployed
3.5
4.7
11.5
Total number engaged
572
921
550
Source: Return Migration Survey, 2000
116
LIDGARD & GILSON
The occupation with the highest percentage was professional, prior,
while away and currently (Table 7). These professionals, however, appear
more likely to work in other occupations while overseas. The activity that
showed the highest percentage increase while people were away from New
Zealand was clerical and related work with an increase of 4.3 percentage
points (Table 7).
Remittances
Those returning in November 2000 were asked whether or not they had sent
money back to New Zealand while working overseas. Over half (56%) had
remitted money back to the country. Most of those sending money back had
forwarded it to a savings account, a few for other debt repayment or to
family. A very small proportion sent money back for student loan repayments
(2%). In January, one substantial remittance was reported on the front page
of the New Zealand Herald after a beachfront mansion sold for NZ$8.3 million
on the Internet (New Zealand Herald 2001, A1). The buyer was a 34 year old
New Zealander currently working in the computer industry in the United
States but intending to return to live in his new home sometime in the future.
Leaving New Zealand
When examining the reasons given for returning to New Zealand it is also
necessary to appreciate the reasons given for leaving the country in the first
place. The decision to come back is, for many, made before they leave and
much return migration is expected. The process is merely the return of those
who were classified as “migrants” on departure because they indicated on
their departure cards an intention of being away from New Zealand for 12
months or more. The great majority of respondents (70%) in the November
1990 sample claimed that they planned to return within three years of
departure and did (Table 5). These people would be better labelled
“international circulators” rather than “permanent and long-term migrants”
as their periodic absences and returns to New Zealand are planned at the
outset (Lidgard 1993:110).
The Dunedin Study found similar results. For the 26 per cent of the 980
sample who were classified as emigrants most in this cohort were considered
to be embarking on their OE (Milne et al. 2001:450). The most common
destinations for these young people were the United Kingdom and Australia.
The desire to travel was given as the most important reason for leaving
cited by 79 per cent of the respondents. A general desire for change was also
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
117
rated as important to extremely important by those returning when they left
to go overseas (73%). In contrast, the poor economy in New Zealand was
rated as not applicable or not at all important in the decision to leave by two
thirds of the group. The loss of a job or student loan debt also both rated
mainly as not applicable or not at all important in the decision to leave – 82
and 86 per cent respectively. Similar results were reported for the Dunedin
study with very few leaving “for low tax rates (7%) or to escape debts (2%)”
(Milne et al 2001:451).
The variable on which there was the greatest variation between the
transtasman group and those going to all other countries was the desire to
travel. Just over half of those returning from Australia in November 2000
gave this as their primary reason for their travel overseas compared with 84
per cent of those returning from other countries. As expected, the
transtasman returnees also rated “desire for a change” at least 10 percentage
points lower than those returning from other countries.
Although a slightly higher percentage of the transtasman returnees
indicated that an economic cluster of reasons for moving overseas were
important to extremely important to them it was still less than half of the
group. For example, moving “for better job prospects” was indicated by 49
per cent returning from Australia, 48 per cent from “other” countries and 47
per cent from the United Kingdom while moving “for higher overseas wages”
was rated as important by 43 per cent of returnees from all countries except
the United Kingdom (42%). Thus, it appears that returnees to New Zealand
at the beginning of the 21st Century had been “pulled” overseas just as
strongly by non-economic as by economic factors.
Reasons for Return
Family ties were uniformly the most important reason for return in both
surveys. Reasons given by returnees in 2000 for coming back were similar to
those of a decade earlier. The majority came back because they have family in
New Zealand (83%), friends (68%) and/or they like New Zealand’s physical
environment (69%). Sixty-five per cent of the respondents felt they were
“ready to return” and of those who marked it was applicable, 73 per cent felt
it was important to extremely important that their children grew up in New
Zealand. Family in New Zealand was slightly more important to the
Australian returnees (88%) than to the returnees from the United Kingdom
(83%). The desire for children to grow up in New Zealand was 21 percentage
points more important for returnees from the United Kingdom (80%) than
for those from Australia (59%). In contrast the economic variables scored
very heavily as being “not applicable” in the rationalisation of return.
LIDGARD & GILSON
118
When the reasons for return were analysed by country of previous
residence significant differences were found in the reasons given compared
between those returning from the United Kingdom and Australia. Males
returning from Australia and “other” countries mentioned economic reasons
more frequently than those returning from the United Kingdom. The
majority of returnees, however, expected to find suitable employment “at
home”. Coming back to a “satisfactory job” was intended even if
“employment” was not cited as an explicit reason for return (Bedford and
Lidgard 1993). Clearly, for those people who return to New Zealand
economic considerations have played a relatively minor role in both their
decision to leave and their decision to return.
Feelings about Time Overseas
When asked to rate their feelings about their time away from New Zealand
most of the November 2000 returnees (91%) felt positive (37%) to strongly
positive (54%) about their overseas experience. Those returning from across
the Tasman rated their positive feelings as slightly lower (84%) than those
returning from the United Kingdom (92%) and other countries (91%). Only
four per cent of the survey population indicated they had negative feelings
about their experience (Table 8).
In response to the question about whether certain aspects of their last
time overseas had been harmful or beneficial to them the respondents
indicated that in most areas they felt their time away had been beneficial to
very beneficial for them.
Financially, 61 per cent of the respondents felt that their time overseas
had been beneficial to very beneficial for them while for nine per cent it had
been harmful. For just over three-quarters of the group the experience in
career terms had been beneficial to very beneficial. Over 80 per cent felt they
had benefited socially from their overseas experience while the rating in
terms of personal development was beneficial to very beneficial for almost 90
per cent of the survey group.
Table 8: Feelings of the November 2000 returnees about the harmful or
beneficial effects of their time spent overseas (per cent)
Category
Neither
Very Harmful harmful nor
harmful
beneficial
Beneficial
Very
beneficial
Don’t
know
Finance
2
7
28
28
33
2
Career experience
-
3
18
40
36
2
Social
-
3
14
41
40
2
Personal development
-
1
7
27
62
2
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
119
In-Depth Interviews
Six in-depth interviews were undertaken to give added background and
substance to issues identified in the postal questionnaire. All six interviewees
lived in the Waikato region and ranged in age from mid twenties to early
fifties. They had returned from Australia, the United Kingdom and France.
All had worked while overseas and since their return to New Zealand.
The face-to-face interviews focused on the work and qualification
experiences of the returnees. Some of them had gained qualifications while
working overseas and in general confirmed that they gained valuable job
skills. All the interviewees had worked in a number of jobs while overseas.
One returnee went from teaching, to nannying, and then back again to
teaching. Another went from doing engineering and electrical style work to
driving trucks. Flexibility and the preparedness to engage in a wide range of
employment opportunities overseas seem to be the key to New Zealand
returnees maximising work experience.
The interviewees reinforced that the major reason for return to New
Zealand was for family or lifestyle reasons, often in the face of higher incomes
overseas. They returned to where they could be close to their families, with
job finding being a secondary priority in terms of their location. Family
support is very important for the returnees, with three either living with
family or in their immediate vicinity. The other three returnees all had close
family within the Waikato.
The words of a male interviewee in his twenties aptly describe the
experiences of some of the interviewees since their return.
I worked for a while, but that job has since dried up. I’ve got a few jobs lined
up once the summer comes. I’m helping out my family, doing free work. It
keeps me busy. I made a date to come back [to New Zealand] and stuck to it.
I wanted to live here in the long term – it’s home. I would rather live here
[New Zealand] than other places, for what it has – freedom, nature.
This is not the case for all returnees, however. Two of the interviewees in
their mid twenties had either already returned overseas, or were likely to do
so in the near future. These younger people appear likely to remain more
mobile than some of the other interviewees who are older and more settled
and have partners and homes in New Zealand.
Overall, the interviewees attached a great deal of significance to their
home country, New Zealand. These people had lived away, gained life
experience, job experience and qualifications, and returned home in order to
use these experiences to enrich their future life. The full report of the in-
120
LIDGARD & GILSON
depth interviews including the interview schedule can be found in Gilson
(2001).
Concluding Comment
It appears that a period of residence in either Australia or the United
Kingdom remains as popular for the young working age Kiwi of the 21st
century as it did for their parents. The historical linkages between New
Zealand and its nearest neighbour (Australia) and former colonial ruler
(United Kingdom) provide familiar institutions, language, cultural and social
ties that perpetuate established patterns of movement (Lidgard 1992).
There are three major streams within the return migration flows to New
Zealand. First, there is the proximate stream “shuttling” back and forth
across the Tasman. Population has flowed freely between New Zealand and
Australia since the beginnings of European settlement in Australasia.
Although this movement has mainly been in a westward direction in the past
few decades there has also been a counter flow east.
Second, there is the stream initiated by and preserving “colonial” and
family ties in the United Kingdom. Since the Second World War the settler
flows of families from the United Kingdom to New Zealand have been
overtaken and replaced by the “temporary” flows of young, single New
Zealanders going to the United Kingdom for a “working holiday” and young
United Kingdom citizens holidaying and working temporarily in New
Zealand.
Third, there is the more diffuse stream from all “other” countries. This
stream is much smaller than the previous two but as the ethnic composition
of New Zealand’s population changes the numbers in this stream continue to
grow. Return migrants from Asia and the Pacific are becoming more
prominent reflecting the return to New Zealand of recent immigrants who
have taken out New Zealand citizenship and who have travelled off-shore as
part of their strategy for maintaining economic and social connections in
former homes.
These studies confirm that strong attachments to people and places in
New Zealand play a significant role in the decisions made by New Zealanders
to return “home”. Almost 75 per cent of the survey respondents had returned
to the city/town/rural district in which they had lived before they left New
Zealand. The attraction of the “old home area” was friends, relatives, familiar
surroundings and, for a few, “the jobs back home”. Even when employment
prospects did not appear to be particularly bright in the area, the presence of
family offered the support needed to disregard this fact – at least initially. If
suitable employment is not as readily available as expected, however, an
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
121
economic dimension becomes important. “Not coming back to any work is
the hardest situation to deal with and all other items feed off this e.g. extra
cash, new friends, house, car etc” (25-29 year old male).
The debate about “brain drain”, like New Zealand’s international
migration flows since the 1960s, appears to be cyclical. The external
migration figures for July 2002 showed that New Zealand citizen PLT
arrivals were up 100 or 4 per cent compared to July 2001 (Statistics New
Zealand, August 2002). For the July year, New Zealand citizen PLT arrivals
were up by 3,400 (to 25,000) while PLT departures of New Zealand citizens
was down 18,200 (29 per cent) to 44,200. It must be kept in mind that the
potential exists for large uncontrolled flows of New Zealand citizens
returning at any time.
As an eminent New Zealand historian asked at the Knowledge Wave
Conference: “Is it a brain-drain or is it a New Zealand world-wide web, a wellplaced global network ready to help New Zealand?” (Belich 2001:4). One
such network of overseas New Zealanders can be found at
http://www.nzedge.com where the organisers attempt to connect “the dots
between the points of presence – nurturing the umbilical cord via
storytelling, conversation and community” (http://www.nzedge.com/hot/
index.html).
At present, global competition for the young working age population has
enabled more young people than ever before to become part of a labour force
with transnational careers and multi-local lives. These people are the current
labour market “winners” and their movement is often circular. We contend
that this phenomenon is better labelled “brain exchange” or “brain
circulation” rather than “brain drain”. Thanks to this circulation of highly
skilled migrants both sending and receiving countries can benefit rather than
one country benefiting at the expense of another (Saxenian 2002:28).
New Zealanders need to remember that fellow citizens are simply
continuing to perpetuate a pattern of movement that has been an established
part of “Kiwi culture” for decades. Rather than lamenting a loss they should
be celebrating a gain (the new ideas, experience and money that returnees
and expatriates contribute to New Zealand society). Proposed new
legislation restricting the traditional two-year British working holiday visa
for all Commonwealth citizens to one year was keenly watched in New
Zealand as it could have spelt the end of the two year OE delivering “a sad
blow to a New Zealand tradition” (Bingham 2002:A1). In May 2002, after the
British Prime Minister had been lobbied by both the New Zealand and
Australian Prime Ministers, it was announced that the revised version of the
working holiday visa would retain the clause (New Zealand Herald 2002;
British High Commission 2002).
LIDGARD & GILSON
122
In the words of four of the returnees in November 2000:
I think brain drain is a red herring. Young people return to NZ with better
skills, rich experiences and mature outlooks - a huge benefit to NZ. A better
way of improving things is not to stop the young people going but to
encourage diverse people to come to NZ with easier immigration
procedures etc. (25-29 year old woman with an undergraduate degree who had
returned to NZ from the UK)
My employment and social experience in Britain has enhanced my personal
and professional development which I feel has been an asset to both myself
and my present employer in New Zealand (25-29 year old woman with a
postgraduate diploma returning from Britain.)
Returned for a better life I hope for my family. I have achieved financial
security while overseas otherwise I wouldn’t have returned. Employment
prospects appear rather poor, especially in my case, which is bewildering
considering my experience. If I wasn’t financially secure I would consider
leaving again (35-39 year old male, financial trader, returning after over 10 years
in England)
I was not looking forward to returning to New Zealand to live and find
work after reading in the media (2000) about New Zealand’s sad economy
and the “brain drain”. But since returning four months ago I have been
pleasantly surprised and realise a lot of what I read was just media hype
(25-29 year old woman, with an undergraduate degree, returning from England,
now living in Auckland).
The significance of the return of its citizens still remains largely ignored in
New Zealand in spite of the potential impact for the local labour and housing
markets, education and health services. The current research on return
migration is contributing to a better understanding of the implications of
“brain exchange” for the country’s labour market, services and social fabric.
In addition, it is dispelling some of the myths associated with recurring
debate on the “brain drain” and exploring the idea that much of New
Zealand’s talent will continue to shuttle back and forth across the Tasman
and/or circulate into and out of countries in the Northern Hemisphere.
Notes
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Statistics New Zealand and the
Department of Labour, in particular the New Zealand Immigration Service and the
Labour Market Policy Group. In addition, support was received from the FRSTfunded New Demographics Directions Programme. Thanks also to Professor Richard
Bedford, Convenor of the Migration Research Group for helpful comments. The
Customer Services Section of Statistics New Zealand in Christchurch provided the
special tabulations on arrivals and departures.
References
Appleyard, R.T. (1962) “Determinants of Return Migration: A Socio-economic
Study of United Kingdom Migrants who Returned from Australia”. The
Economic Record 38(83):352-368.
Barrington, R. and Davey, J. (1980) Migrants and Their Motives, New Zealand
Planning Council, Wellington.
Bedford, R.D. (2001) “2001: Reflections on the Spatial Odysseys of New
Zealanders”. New Zealand Geographer 57(1):49-54.
Bedford, R.D. and Lidgard, J.M. (1992) “Home to Work? The Employment
Experience of Return Migrants”. Morrison, P. (ed.) Labour, Employment and
Work, Proceedings of the Fifth LEW Conference, November 1992, Wellington,
1993, 136-147.
Belich, J. (2001) “Presenting a past”. Paper presented to the Catching the Knowledge
Wave Conference, 1-3 August, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bingham, E. (2002) “Great Kiwi OE under threat”, NZ Herald 26/01/02, A1.
British High Commission (2002) “Working Holiday in the U.K.”. The British High
Commission, http:/www.britain.webstation.net.nz/vpass/workhols.html.
Bushnell, P. and Choy, W.K. (2001) “Go West, Young Man, Go West!”?. Treasury
Working Paper 01/07, New Zealand Treasury, (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/
workingpapers/).
Campbell, R.R. and Johnson, D.M. (1976) “Propositions on Counterstream
Migration”. Rural Sociology 41(1):127-145.
Dalziel, L. (2001) “General Skills Category Passmark Adjusted”. Media Statement,
Minister of Immigration, 26/11/01.
Fortney, J.A. (1970) “International Migration of Professionals”. Population Studies
12(2):217-232.
Gibson, A. (2001) “Historic Bach, Beach Views, $8.3m Please”. New Zealand Herald,
25/1/01, A1.
Gilson, C. (2001) “Work and Qualification Experiences from the ‘Kiwi OE’ and their
Impacts on the Return Migration of New Zealanders”. Unpublished 590
Research Project, Department of Geography, University of Waikato, Hamilton.
Glaser, W.A. (1978) The Brain Drain: Emigration and Return, Oxford, United
Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Glass, H. and Choy, W.K. (2001) “Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?” New Zealand
Treasury Working Paper 01/22,
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/workingpapers/2001/twp01-22.pdf
Gould, W.T.S. and Findlay, A.M. (1994) “The geography of the ‘New’ International
Migration”. In Gould, W.T.S. and Findlay, A.M. (eds), Population Migration and
the Changing World Order, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 275-285.
Ho, E.S. (2002) “Multi-local Residence, Transnational Networks: Chinese
‘Astronaut’ Families in New Zealand”. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal
11(1):145-164.
______ (2001) “The Challenge of Recruiting and Retaining International Talent”.
New Zealand Journal of Geography 112:18-22.
Kerr, R. (2001) “The Brain Drain”. Speech to Hutt Rotary Club, 2 May, Wellington.
124
LIDGARD & GILSON
King, R., Strachan, A. and Mortimer, J. (1983) “Return Migration: A Review of the
Literature”. Discussion Paper in Geography, Number 19, Oxford Polytechnic,
United Kingdom, August.
Lidgard, J.M. (1994) “Return Migration of New Zealanders: A Profile of 1990
Returnees”. New Zealand Journal of Geography 97(1):3-13.
______(1993) “Neglected International Migrants: A Study of Returning New
Zealanders”. New Zealand Population Review 19(3&4):94-124.
______ (1992) “Return Migration of New Zealanders: A Rising Tide?”.
Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.
______ (1991) “Homing Kiwis?: A Study of Return Migrants to Hamilton”. New
Zealand Population Review 17(1):41-50.
Lidgard, J.M. and Bedford, R.D. (1999) “New Zealand’s International Migration
System at the End of the 20th Century: Review and Prospect”. New Zealand
Population Review 25 (1&2):41-56.
Lidgard, J., Ho, E., Chen, Y-Y, Goodwin, J. and Bedford, R. (1998) “Immigrants
from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong in New Zealand in the mid-1990s: Macro
and Micro Perspectives”. Population Studies Centre Discussion Paper No 29,
University of Waikato, Hamilton.
Lowe, J. (1991) “Population Monitoring Group Technical Working Paper for
Report No 6”. Supplement to On the Move: Migration and Population - Trends and
Policies New Zealand Planning Council, Wellington.
Milne, B.J., Poulton, R., Caspi, A. and Moffitt, T. (2001) "Brain Drain or OE?
Characteristics of Young New Zealanders who Leave". New Zealand Medical
Journal 114:450-453.
Morrison, P.S. (2001) “Labour Market Geography in a Global Context: Notes on
the New Zealand Case”. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the New
Zealand Geographical Society and the Institute of Australian Geographers, University
of Otago, Dunedin, 29 January - 2 February.
New Zealand Herald (2001) “Stemming Flow”. New Zealand Herald 22 May, A5.
______ (2002) “Kiwi OE Visa Rules Assurance”. The New Zealand Herald 17 May.
Papademetriou, D. (2000) “International Migration, Labour Markets and Urban
Governance in the Western World’s Metropolitan Centres”. Paper presented at
the International Conference on Migrations: Scenarios for the 21st Century, Rome,
12-14 July.
Population Monitoring Group (1991) “On the Move: Migration and Population Trends and Policies”. PMG Report No. 6, New Zealand Planning Council,
Wellington.
Portes, A. (1976) “Determinants of the Brain Drain”. International Migration Review
10(4):489-507.
Richmond, A.H. (1984) “Explaining Return Migration”. In Kubat, D. (ed.), The
Politics of Return: International Return Migration in Europe, Centre for Migration
Studies, New York, 269-275.
______ (1968) “Return Migration from Canada to Britain”. Population Studies
22(2):263-271.
Saxenian, A. (2002) “Brain Circulation: How High-skill Immigration Makes
Everyone Better Off”. Brookings Review 20(1):28-31.
RETURN MIGRATION OF NEW ZEALANDERS
125
Silva, P.A. and Stanton, W.R. (eds) (1996) From Child to Adult. The Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, Auckland: Oxford University
Press.
Small, V. and Gregory, A. (2001) “Migrants Rush to Beat Australian Residence
Clampdown”. New Zealand Herald 27 February, A1.
Statistics New Zealand (2001) “External Migration August 2001 Commentary”. Hot
off the Press, http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external
Tuan, Y-F. (1977) Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, London: Edward
Arnold.
Wilson, J.A. and Gaston, J. (1974) “Reflux from the ‘Brain Drain’“. Minerva 12
(4):459-468.
1 Throughout the paper the sample and survey populations are referred to as
“1990” and “2000” for simplicity, even though the samples refer to people who
entered New Zealand in November 1990 and 2000, while the surveys refer to people
who completed questionnaires in March – May 1991 and 2001.
2 This longitudinal investigation of the health, development and behaviour of
1037 children born in Dunedin during 1972-73 is detailed in Silva and Stanton
(1996). Ninety-six per cent of the living sample participated in the “age-26”
assessment held between March 1998 and July 1999 (Milne et al. 2001).